Frank commentary from an unretired call girl

January Q & A

That is the essence of science: ask an impertinent question, and you are on the way to a pertinent answer. – Jacob Bronowski

It’s time for another round of questions sent in by my readers; if you have a question for me please send it to maggiemcneill@earthlink.net and I’ll answer it next month.

You mentioned in one of your blogs you’re not a big fan of either cunnilingus or analingus, why is that? I’ve had women tell me that they can’t relax enough because they are worried about how they smell down there, is that a major concern for some women?

Actually, I like analingus on me just fine; I just refuse to do it to a man. I don’t care for cunnilingus for the simple reason that I can’t usually climax that way; once in a blue moon somebody puts enough pressure on the clit to accomplish it but generally not. And even when it works it’s totally unsatisfying for me, like the “junk food” of sex; I just don’t really feel satisfied unless I’m penetrated, so I could never be an exclusive lesbian no matter how much I like girls. As for the second part of your question…oh, definitely! Even with my experience, and despite the thousands of times I’ve been told how sweet I taste, it still makes me tense until I’m sure the guy is really getting into it. You have to understand how paranoid women are about hygiene, and those who watch too many TV commercials are even worse.

You mentioned once that you had electrolysis on your bikini line; is that hair permanently gone or do you need to touch up down there?

Those who saw my picture on December 17th probably noticed that my skin is extremely fair and my hair rather dark; this is a deadly combination because even when one shaves one’s legs, the stubble is clearly visible under the skin. As a teenager I existed in a permanent state of mortification over this issue; I had no aversion to miniskirts because I just wore hose with them, but informal shorts were out and so was daytime swimming (though I loved pool parties after dark). So in my early twenties I decided to start experimenting with other means of hair removal. I had already discovered Nair did absolutely nothing for me, nor did any other common depilatory, so I tried the stronger ones and left them on for twice the suggested length; I got chemical burns on my skin but the hair stubbornly remained. I tried sugaring (which worked great but was expensive and time-consuming), home waxing (ditto) and this crazy mitt thing that was supposed to rub the hair off, but none of it really satisfied me.

Then I discovered that boon to womankind, the epilator, a device which looks sort of like an electric shaver but has a rotating head covered with little tweezers; one runs it over one’s legs and it literally plucks the hairs out by the roots. They take quite a while to grow back and when they do they’re finer and lighter. The first time I ever used the epilator I was smart enough to do it one day after shaving my legs, so the hairs were very short; I did it twice the first week and then once per week ever since. The first time it was very uncomfortable (some might say a bit painful but I have a high threshold of pain), the third time only slightly uncomfortable, and by the fifth or sixth week I barely felt it. I was (and still am) absolutely delighted with it; after 15 years of weekly use I no longer have any leg or arm hair to speak of, though I still epilate every Tuesday to clear off the peachfuzz my husband swears exists only in my imagination.

When I first started stripping I had electrolysis on my bikini line, eyebrows and underarms (I had so few hairs there to start with I just figured I’d get them permanently zapped). Electrolysis is indeed permanent but since I still have hair along my labia I just get it with the epilator. Since as you might expect that area is much more sensitive than my legs it was pretty painful the first half-dozen times, but as my Maman used to say “You have to suffer for beauty”. And after all these years, I barely notice it any more unless I carelessly get too close to the remaining triangle of public hair; that, I notice.

I just heard about the “Video Vigilante”; is what this guy does legal? It seems like stalking if you ask me.

The soi-disant “Video Vigilante”, Brian Bates, is a perfect example of reaction formation; he is an Oklahoma City man who is so obsessed with streetwalkers that he has spent huge amounts of his time for the past 14 years driving around areas they frequent, videotaping men who try to pick them up and then turning the videos in to the cops as “evidence” and also posting them on his website “JohnTV”. Clearly, this is not a mentally healthy person, but unfortunately under Oklahoma law his behavior is mostly legal because he videotapes events which occur in public. A few years ago he was accused of paying streetwalkers to set up potential clients so he could tape them, but the charges were eventually dismissed because, though highly credible, they appeared to be the result of a long-standing feud between Bates, the police and Oklahoma City District Attorney Wes Lane.

Other states have different rules about public videotaping by individuals; a number of them consider the act to be essentially similar to wiretapping and so apply the rules of consent which regulate the latter to the former as well. Illinois’ wiretap law, the strictest in the country, requires both parties of a conversation consent to being recorded, and this also applies to videotaping. That sounds wonderful until one realizes that it means videotaping occasions of police brutality is a felony unless the cop consents to the taping (hah!), and the city of Chicago has on a number of occasions charged bystanders and even victims with this law in order to prevent their actions being exposed publicly as has become so common in other states.

But in Oklahoma it’s business as usual for the Video Voyeur, who continues his weird antics to the present day and apparently only takes breaks to go on self-promotion tours and talk shows.

Couple of points….
1. Quote: “but the charges were eventually dismissed because, though highly credible, they appeared to be the result of a long-standing feud between Bates, the police and Oklahoma City District Attorney Wes Lane.”

Really – “credible.” Would you like to expand on that or just make unfounded assertions? Actually, the charges were dropped after the prostitute making the accusations mother went to the media to say her daughter was lying and was hoping a conviction would mean she could file a lawsuit against me. Also, the DA was forced to admit he lied about having any recorded evidence against me. He claimed the recording magically malfunctioned.

2. Surely I get points for my public stance that 100% private, consensual and unorganized prostitution should be decriminalized.

1) I was using the term “credible” in the conventional sense rather than a legal sense; since you clearly do seek publicity for your website, the idea that you might seek to “keep the ratings up” by artificial means is believable. After all, television networks do it all the time!

2) You will absolutely get points for that in my book as soon as you remove the word “unorganized”. Prostitutes have the right to organize for mutual aid, protection, cost-sharing, etc just like members of any other trade or profession do.

One thing you do get points from me on already is your attacks on the DA; I personally consider district attorneys to be among the most evil of all humans because they not only accept but SEEK a job which requires them to attempt to convict people of crimes by any means necessary even if they suspect or believe those people to be innocent.

Congratulations, Maggie! You’ve now reached the point where if you write about somebody, somebody will notice and quite likely show up here to tell his side of the story (which itself is not a bad thing at all).

I, too, noted the word “unorganized,” and I will be interested in what Brian Bates has to say about this.

I think I have indeed reached that point; a few nights ago I heard from the attorney who defended Gregory Carr of Miami Companions, and he said he had been referred to my column on the case by Mr. Carr, who liked it very much.

I, too, am glad Mr. Bates replied, especially since he was so civil. I welcome disagreement as long as it’s polite; it’s when people start calling names and accusing me of moral turpitude that I won’t let their comments post. :-)

Maggie on Twitter

Boring but necessary legal stuff

All original content on this website (i.e. all of my columns, pages and anything else which I write myself) is protected under international copyright law as of the time it is posted; though you may link to it as you please or quote passages (as long as you attribute the quote to me), please do not reproduce whole columns without my express written permission. In other words, you have to say "pretty please with sugar on top" first, and then wait for me to say "okey-dokey".